State WQ data for NPDES efforts

Zachmann, Joseph (MDA) 

t

o

:

Jordan Page 02/02/2010 05:43 PM

Cc: "Johnson, Heather (MDA)"

Hi, Page:

I'm responding to an email forwarded to us by Davis Daiker of Florida (also chair of a SFIREG working

committee, of which I'm a member).

Dr. Daiker attended the recent Texas federal‐state meeting on the draft NPDES permits for pesticide

applications to, over or near water, and his email suggests that you are interested in having "any surface

water monitoring data on pesticide active ingredients."  

He also noted that EPA "did not specify whether they only want data from pesticide use scenarios

covered under the permit (aquatic weed control)," and suggested that we consider the data we have

available and provide it to the Agency.

Because the request, as conveyed, is broad and somewhat non‐specific, I am providing you with a link to

the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) monitoring webpage, where all recent reports on

groundwater and surface water monitoring for pesticides is posted.  The most recent report contains

information on lakes sampling conducted in cooperation with national lakes assessment activities by

MN's CWA agency.  Here's the link to MDA's monitoring webpage:  

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/pesticides/maace.aspx

You might also be interested in the attached, most recent annual report on aquatic plant management

from our Dept. of Natural Resources (delegated agency for issuing aquatic pesticide application permits).  

While this report does not contain analytical information, it does provide insight into the number and

kinds of permitted applications for certain kinds of aquatic pest management.

I am copying on this message the supervisor of the MDA Monitoring Unit.  If you need more specific

water resource monitoring data from us, or need it in a different format, please conatct Heather

Johnson.

If you have any questions about this email, please contact me.

Regards,

Joe

__________________

Joseph E. Zachmann, Ph.D.

Research Scientist

Pesticide Management Unit

Minnesota Department of Agriculture
625 Robert Street North

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-2538

Visit the Minnesota Department of Agriculture website at www.mda.state.mn.us

From: Liemandt, Paul (MDA) 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 9:30 AM

To: Buzicky, Greg (MDA); Stoddard, Dan (MDA); Zachmann, Joseph (MDA); Johnson, Heather (MDA); 

Regimbal, Gregg (MDA)

Cc: Spitzmueller, Joseph (MDA); Doucette, Elise (MPCA)

Subject: FW: NPDES

Going thru my eMails after an office absence, and found this request for data.

I believe this is an Env. Section/PFMD reply requested matter.

If this has already been forwarded to you all, my apology.

PL

From: grier stayton [mailto:aapco-sfireg@comcast.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:07 AM

To: Al Havinga; Andrew Thostenson; Bobby Simoneaux; Bonnie Rabe; Clark Burgess; Criswell, Jim; Dale 

Mitchell; Daniel Helfgott; David Rousseau; Davis H. Daiker; Elizabeth A. Pelham; Fred Corey; Jack 

Peterson; Jim Gray; Jim Roelofs; Kevin Armbrust; Liza Fleeson; Maureen Serafini; Liemandt, Paul (MDA); 

Robert Koethe; Ron Kendall; Tim Creger; Tony Cofer; Vicki Cassens

Subject: FW: NPDES

Forwarded January 27, 2010, from Grier Stayton, AAPCO Executive Secretary.

From: Daiker, Dave [mailto:daikerd@doacs.state.fl.us] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:42 AM

To: grier stayton

Subject: NPDES

Dear state regulator,

On January 20 and 21, I attended the second NPDES face‐to‐face meeting held by the USEPA in 

Dallas. The purpose of the meeting was for the EPA to present their second draft of their general 

NPDES permit and to solicit input from state regulators (FIFRA and CWA). Recall, the federal permit 

will be applicable to those 4 NPDES un‐authorized states, Alaska, and tribal lands. However, it will 

likely serve as a template for the remaining 45 states to develop a permit through the regional EPA 

offices.  The format of the meeting was very similar to that of the Kansas City meeting, in that the 

EPA went section by section discussing the elements of the permit and what is required under the 

CWA. 

Over all, the meeting went very well and the permit approach taken by the Agency appears to be 

something that most states were amenable to.  I hope to be provided with meeting notes from the 

EPA’s consultant soon and can try to make those available. 

Today I am writing on behalf of EPA’s request for surface water monitoring data or even modeling 

efforts conducted by your program. The EPA is seeking data/information that demonstrates that the 

technology‐based effluent limits (TBEL) actively employed today (i.e., FIFRA labels) are sufficient to 
protect surface water quality and meet many state requirements of “no toxics in toxic amounts”.

Further, the EPA hopes to be able to demonstrate, if needed, that the TBELs proposed in the draft 

permit (FIFRA‐approved labels combined with IPM and various BMP requirements) will be 

increasingly sufficient to protect waters of the US. Recall, the EPA is proposing to use TBEL, rather 

than water quality‐based limits.

EPA is specifically interested in receiving any surface water monitoring data on pesticide active 

ingredients. Although, data from more controlled studies, where application rates, dates, etc. are 

known, are preferred, the EPA would be interested in any ambient monitoring data demonstrating 

protection of water resources. They did not specify whether they only want data from pesticide use 

scenarios covered under the permit (aquatic weed control), so I would see what data you have 

available and provide it to the Agency. 

Data can be submitted to Jordan Page at page.jordan@epa.gov

I’ve tried to word this as clearly as possible, but if I have confused anyone, please do not hesitate to 

contact me. I can be reached by e‐mail or at the following number.

Davis H. Daiker, Ph.D.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services